2008Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council: Safeguarding access state and local government and defending freedom of the press since 1978.http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=43&Itemid=75
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 21:05:50 +0000Joomla! 1.5 - Open Source Content Managementen-gbDecember: Signed, sealed, delivered--but not yours http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94:december-signed-sealed-delivered-but-not-yours-&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75
http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94:december-signed-sealed-delivered-but-not-yours-&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75 "Case closed." These are words you expect to hear when a court case is completed-the defendant has been found guilty or innocent, the parties have settled, or the case is dismissed.

But "case closed" may have another meaning in Wisconsin. Currently, dozens of ongoing cases in Wisconsin are fully or partially sealed from public view, unavailable even on the courts' online Wisconsin Circuit Court Access (WCCA).

Sealing court cases and documents should be an exception to the rule. In 2006, the WCCA advisory committee found that while a circuit court judge has power to seal a case, the judge must first determine that the reasons for closure outweigh the public's right to know.

"Given the strong state policy favoring openness," the committee stated, "documents or cases are only rarely sealed."

A few court cases or documents may be legitimately closed to protect the identities of people wrongly named in a court action. Such cases might include identity theft - such as when a person is pulled over for speeding and gives police someone else's name, says Bill Lueders, news editor of Isthmus and president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.

Similarly, Lueders suggests, seals might apply in cases concerning juveniles charged as adults who later win motions to waive their cases back to juvenile court.

But a recent case in Dodge County illustrates that the usual policy against sealing may not be uniformly applied. In October 2008, the Wisconsin State Journal's George Hesselberg reported that a state prisoner and prison guard who were allegedly involved in a fight saw different treatment of their charges on WCCA. The prisoner's charge, eventually dismissed, is on WCCA. The guard's charge, also dismissed, is not.

The reason for sealing the guard's record, according to his attorney, was that prison guards are "vulnerable to specious accusations [by inmates] under current law." These accusations can then harm reputations and employment careers.

But as Hesselberg pointed out, there was no evidence that the inmate's accusations were specious in that case. Even if they were, he continued, the reasons for sealing the record don't appear sufficient given the usual rule of openness.

Records in civil case may be sealed for even more dubious reasons. In one recent case in Columbia County, two business partners attempted to seal court records concerning a legal dispute between them. The partners were involved in a controversial development project in the Wisconsin Dells opposed by many community members. Project opponents argued that if the principals in such a controversial project were feuding, the public has a right to know. (Full disclosure: I represented the project opponents.)

A judge ordered the records unsealed, stating, "[w]hile this does involve an intra-company dispute, the parties have chosen to seek resolution of their dispute in the courts thus potentially disclosing their dispute to the public. They certainly have information that they may wish to keep from public view, however, they have not shown a sufficient basis to overcome the policy of public access to court records."

Here lies the rub: When a case is wrongly sealed, it may be impossible for the public to get review of this decision. Sealing, by its nature, conceals everything about the case from public view except for the name of the judge who ordered the case sealed. Thus, the public may never know about a case even if it implicates the public interest.

A clearer policy from the Wisconsin Legislature or Supreme Court, or better awareness of the current policy, might help judges avoid unnecessary sealing.

Until such a policy emerges, however, you can use at least two ways to muddle through:

-- Learn about sealed cases by typing "sealed*" into the business name field on the WCCA search form. WCCA should then produce a list of at least some sealed cases.

-- Enter a party name into the WCCA search form. If the party is involved in a sealed case, at least that bare fact may emerge from the search.

The best option, of course, is for cases not to be sealed at all -- or at least sealed only partially, in very rare cases when private interests trump the public's right to know.

Christa Westerberg, an attorney at Garvey McNeil & McGillivray, S.C., in Madison, Wis., is vice president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (www.wisfoic.org), a nonprofit group dedicated to open government. Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the FOIC.

]]>jfoust@threedee.com (By Christa Westerberg )2008 ColumnsSat, 04 Apr 2009 18:11:52 +0000November: State employees: Public servants, not secret agentshttp://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93:november-state-employees-public-servants-not-secret-agents&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75
http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93:november-state-employees-public-servants-not-secret-agents&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75 Not that long ago, I was working for you. I was a public employee of the taxpayers of the state of Wisconsin, and I was even a bit proud of that status: Government by the people, and all that.

Of course, working for the public meant that my bosses - readers like you - were entitled to know where I worked, my job title, even my modest salary. Back then, you could look up all that information online.

But more recently, the largest state employee union has doggedly pursued a court fight to hide the identities of state employees from the taxpayers who pay their salaries. The case has now made its way up to the state Supreme Court, which should quickly reject the Wisconsin State Employees Union claim once and for all. The circuit court has already sided with the public's right to know, but the union keeps appealing to overturn a wise decision.

This court case started about four years ago, after an audit showed as many as 424 state workers might be driving state vehicles despite prior drunken driving convictions and other serious or repeated traffic offenses. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel asked for the workers' names, but the state refused, citing a secrecy provision tucked into a union contract covering thousands of workers across state government.

At the time, some officials seemed surprised that the provision, a clear subversion of openness in government, even existed. But the union, then and now, argues that this sweeping secrecy is needed to protect some of its members, such as prison guards who might be targeted by the cronies of the criminals they keep under lock and key. It's a frightening prospect, thus far unsubstantiated. Then again, how would we know? We can't find out the names of the guards.

On the other hand, it has been clearly substantiated that the secrecy clause has been invoked not to protect individual privacy but to prevent public embarrassment in communities large and small. In addition to the Journal Sentinel case, the Lakeland Times, a twice-weekly paper published in Minocqua, also was forced to launch a legal crusade in 2005. It sought the names and salaries of employees in the two northern offices of the Department of Natural Resources, the type of basic information that has always been public under the Open Records Law.

Nobody is trying to get truly personal information about public employees, such as their home addresses, spouses' names or Social Security numbers. And as media lawyer Bob Dreps of Godfrey & Kahn points out, the information sought in the lawsuit - specific names - is generally available in printed directories and on the Internet. The union contract provision apparently was intended merely to conceal from the public other records containing those names. Cloaking public union employee names and activities this way can only invite abuse or fraud.

No state contract, whether struck with unions or private contractors, should be able to flout state open records laws by prohibiting public release of information covered under those laws. Dane County Circuit Judge William Foust was the first to recognize this folly, writing in ruling against the union in 2006: "Frankly, I cannot fathom how it is not in the public interest to know the names of public employees."

Now the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices have agreed to hear out both sides; in the meantime, state agencies continue to withhold basic information. This whole costly dustup might have been avoided had not lawmakers and state officials inadvertently signed off on the excessive secrecy of the union contract in 2003 and 2004.

"The citizens of Wisconsin have never given their consent to a state government that operates under a cloak of secrecy through anonymous employees," the lawyer Dreps wrote in a brief to the court this year. "It is fundamental that the public authorizes and controls the state government, not vice versa. ... To agree that the identities of state employees must be concealed ... contravenes the very notion of government by the people."

It's now up to the high court to right an obvious wrong and make sure state union members remain public servants, not secret agents.

Kelley, who worked for UW-Madison from 1998 to 2002, is digital media manager for Capital Newspapers, based in Madison. Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (www.wisfoic.org), a nonprofit group dedicated to open government.

]]>jfoust@threedee.com (By Tim Kelley)2008 ColumnsSat, 04 Apr 2009 18:09:32 +0000October: Openness watchdog turns 30http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51:openness-watchdog-turns-30&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75
http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51:openness-watchdog-turns-30&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75In October 1978, a group of 21 representatives of state print and broadcast media met at the offices of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association. Their collective goal: To “have more clout, become more of a fist, serve a stronger warning [and] have a bigger impact” in defending rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.

The result was a new state organization called the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. The group, of which I am proud to be part, has survived and thrived.

The driving force behind the council’s formation was Bob Meloon, then executive editor of The Capital Times. He gave an impassioned speech at its inaugural meeting.

“The hard fact remains that the arteries of information about government and its legal workings are gradually closing. They are being closed by people who don’t believe in the open processes of our democratic society,” said Meloon, who died in 1996.

“They are being closed by an ever-more-complex technology which makes physical access to information more difficult. And they are being closed by changing attitudes among the general public, which does not have the fervent support for press freedom processes that we know to be vital.”

In its very first year, the council fought a flurry of closures of court proceedings. Our first president, Milwaukee Sentinel editor Bob Wills, noted that some Wisconsin defense attorneys viewed a recent U.S. Supreme Court case as an “invitation to seek closure” of what had always been public hearings, and some judges were going along.

The council responded by printing wallet-sized cards quoting the state statute which affirms that “every court shall be public and every citizen may freely attend the same,” except in extraordinary circumstances. These could be produced whenever a motion to close a proceeding was made. The cards asked for a delay so that arguments in favor of openness could be made. Usually this alone was enough to rebuff secrecy attempts.

This dynamic has played out countless times since. The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council has served to remind those in power – sometimes cooperatively, sometimes not – of the state’s traditions of open government.

Importantly, Wisconsin’s openness laws extend to all citizens, not just the press. The Wisconsin Newspaper Association, Wisconsin Broadcasters Association and Wisconsin Associated Press are still among the council’s core sponsors. But over the years we’ve added academics, representatives of state watchdog groups, private investigators and citizen activists.

Enactment of the state’s public records law in 1981 and open meetings law in 1983, both with preambles asserting a strong presumption of openness, also changed the council’s focus. To some extent, our mission since then has been to defend these laws from legislative and judicial attack.

Shirley Abrahamson, chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, spoke in mid-October at an event celebrating the council’s 30th anniversary. (Listen here) She recited the preambles to both laws, which hold that access to information is an essential component of an informed electorate, one of the underpinnings of our democracy.

She spoke with pride of Wisconsin’s decision to allow cameras in the courtroom, noting that she herself has benefited from this policy: “I watched the Dahmer trial and saw my Milwaukee friends [in court], while in Singapore.”

Trusting citizens with information about the workings of government has served the state well.

“In Wisconsin, the trademark of the state is openness, transparency in government and records," said Abrahamson. "Let the sun shine in. Sunshine is a good disinfectant."

We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (www.wisfoic.org), a nonprofit group dedicated to open government. Bill Lueders is the group's president.

]]>jfoust@threedee.com (By Bill Lueders)2008 ColumnsMon, 10 Nov 2008 00:43:13 +0000September: Ask candidates for office about open government issueshttp://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48:ask-candidates-for-office-about-open-government-issues&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75
http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48:ask-candidates-for-office-about-open-government-issues&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75 Openness in government is critical to democracy. Wisconsin state law makes that clear in this high-minded preamble to the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law:

"In recognition of the fact that a representative government of the American type is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the policy of this state that the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as it compatible with the conduct of governmental business."

How are we doing in real life? Not always so good.

That's why it's important, in an election year, to ask the candidates questions that help reveal their commitment to openness in government.

Here are some examples.

At the federal level, a group called OMB Watch has put together questions to address secrecy in the executive branch of the federal government, which would make good questions for candidates for House or Senate. Among them:

-- Do you favor disclosure of communications between the White House and agencies regarding administrative decision-making and information disclosure?

-- What are the appropriate limits of executive privilege in the disclosure of information?

-- Federal law protects only corporate whistleblowers who reveal financial abuses. Should the law be expanded to protect the rights of private-sector workers who report violations of public health and safety laws?

-- How can we ensure public access to health and safety information?

At the state and local levels, government still throws up many obstacles. Problems include overcharging for records, delays in responding to open records requests, problems getting police and prosecution information. Legislators provide information about bill drafts to some interest groups while withholding information to other groups or members of the public and they are trying to limit access to court records online.

While the Open Meetings Law provides exemptions for meetings "whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session," a recent court case said that exemption should be narrowly applied.

In short, local governments may not use the exemption to keep from the public the fact that it is negotiating with a private company to provide local taxpayer subsidies.

In a recent case involving an ethanol plant in Milton, the city council negotiated with an ethanol company for about a year without letting local citizens know it was even considering an ethanol plant.

Robert Dreps, a Madison lawyer who specializes in freedom on information cases, said, "Milton provides more concrete advice on whether they can close the meeting. Every exemption has to be narrowly construed."

Ask your local officials how they would handle such negotiations.

Dreps said he most commonly gets local media questions about attempts to conceal personnel or law enforcement issues. While there are reasons for privacy in personnel issues, there also is a public accountability for local governments whose employees are abusing the public trust.

Consider asking candidates how they will ensure that their constituents get the information they need to be responsible citizens. In short, remind them of the high-minded intent enshrined in Wisconsin law - and insist that they adhere to it.

]]>jfoust@threedee.com (By Richard Mial )2008 ColumnsMon, 13 Oct 2008 02:48:57 +0000August: Respect the rights of news photographers http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95:august-respect-the-rights-of-news-photographers-&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75
http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95:august-respect-the-rights-of-news-photographers-&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75A picture, they say, is worth 1,000 words. The television and print photographers who take them play a vital role in keeping the public informed. It's a job that requires much skill, and sometimes entails great risk.

News photographers in Wisconsin have been attacked, threatened, arrested, and had their cameras and film confiscated. They have been barred from meetings that were open to other members of the public. The hand held up to the camera is unfortunately a familiar image.

Recently, the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council and Wisconsin News Photographers Association jointly produced a Bill of Rights outlining where and under what circumstances state photographers are allowed. Some of this document is drawn from generally accepted national standards and some is based on Wisconsin law and court decisions.

News photographers in Wisconsin have the same rights of access as other citizens; if the general public can photograph or videotape a location or event, the media can too. And, in their role as "surrogates of the public," members of the media are sometimes afforded special accommodation, such as access to crime and accident scenes.

The state's open meetings law expressly requires all public bodies to "make a reasonable effort to accommodate any person desiring to record, film or photograph the meeting," so long as this does not interfere with the meeting.

Photographers may freely photograph activity that occurs within public areas, including streets, sidewalks, beaches, parks, town squares, and bus and train stations. Photography in federal buildings and at airports is subject to restrictions.

Photographers may not take photographs of private property without permission, unless it is plainly visible from public property, like a street or sidewalk. It is not proper to use cameras to peer into places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, no matter where the cameras are based.

Photos are generally allowed in restaurants, business offices, shopping malls and movie theater lobbies, so long as no one objects. But permission should be obtained before taking photographs in these areas for publication or broadcast.

Photography of students in public schools, K-12, is subject to restrictions, such as parental permission; contact the individual school principal. Photography at school sporting events or performances is permitted.

Federal courts in Wisconsin do not permit cameras or recording equipment. Under Supreme Court Rule Chapter 61, state courts generally allow photography with the judge's permission, but it should be as unobtrusive as possible. Jurors may not be photographed, and judges may impose other restrictions. See guidelines here.

Photographs may be taken within medical facilities only with permission. Signed releases should be obtained from any photographed persons, even if they appear only in the background.

Permission is needed to take photographs within penal institutions, although state administrative rules (DOC Chapter 309 for adults and Chapter 379 for juveniles) encourage prison officials to accommodate media access.

Museums may prohibit photographs of certain artworks and exhibits, or impose other restrictions, such as a ban on flash photography.

In addition to these rules, the Wisconsin Photographers Bill of Rights gives some particular guidance to news photographers. It advises them to carry media credentials and a government-issued photo ID at all times; to never trespass on private property; to always politely request access and obey any restrictions; to follow orders from police officers or security officials; to never take anything from a crime or accident scene (except pictures); and never willingly surrender cameras, video discs or tape recordings to anyone.

It is hoped that police and fire departments and other public offices throughout Wisconsin will download and post this Bill of Rights.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (www.wisfoic.org), a nonprofit group dedicated to open government. Bill Lueders is the group's president.

]]>jfoust@threedee.com (By Bill Lueders )2008 ColumnsSat, 04 Apr 2009 18:13:15 +0000July: Supreme Court rulings impact open government http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145:july-supreme-court-rulings-impact-open-government-&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75
http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145:july-supreme-court-rulings-impact-open-government-&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75 Recent Wisconsin Supreme Court rulings present a mixed bag that still lends some support to open government advocates by providing new guidance to citizens and government bodies.

First, the open government wins:

-- State of Wisconsin v. Beaver Dam Area Development Corporation clarified when allegedly private entities are subject to the public records and open meetings laws.

The case was brought by the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office against the Beaver Dam Area Development Corporation. The court ruled that the corporation was subject to the public records and open meetings laws. Justices noted that the corporation was entirely city-funded, performs a public function (economic development), appears in its presentation to the public to be part of the city, and is subject to a degree of city control, including access to its records.

While the court emphasized the importance of economic development, it also stated: "We cannot countenance a government body circumventing the legislative directive for an open and transparent government by paying an entity to perform a governmental function."

Full disclosure: I filed a brief arguing that the corporation was subject to these laws on behalf of a Beaver Dam citizens’ group called Citizens for Open Government, the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, and the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association.

-- Sands v. Whitnall School District determined that exemptions to the open meetings law cannot overrule a person’s ability to obtain information from an opposing party in a lawsuit. In this case, a fired school district employee sued the district, alleging wrongful termination. The school board discussed Sands’ termination in closed meetings.

No one disputed that the discussions were properly held in closed session; the question is whether Sands could later obtain the content of those discussions through her lawsuit. The Supreme Court said the information was inappropriately withheld from Sands because the open meetings law’s limited exemptions do not create a “deliberative process” privilege as the school district had contended.

The court concluded: “Considering the general presumptions of openness and access underlying both our discovery and open meetings statutes, there is no compelling justification for denying a litigant's rights to discovery regarding the substance of closed session discussions pertaining to that litigant.”

Another case created mixed results for openness but provided some helpful clarifications of the law. In WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, the records requester was a company that wanted to access searchable electronic versions of property assessment databases. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the village adequately responded to the request by providing a PDF copy of the database, rather than the searchable version of the database the requesting company originally wanted.

In the process, however, the court clarified that a governmental body cannot pawn off a records request to an independent contractor — in this case, the contractor who developed the database — and thereby avoid liability under the open records law. Rather, the request must be made to the governmental body itself, who is then responsible for getting the documents from the contractor and delivering them to the requestor.

-- Finally, the only clear loss for open government was Watton v. Hegerty. This case concerned an open records request to the Milwaukee Police Department for two signed statements of emergency detention. The statements were created by police officers in the course of involuntarily committing an individual to a state mental health treatment facility. The individual was later released and committed a homicide.

The court ruled the statements were treatment records that should be kept confidential. To reach this conclusion, it determined that the documents were created by a police officer in the course of providing treatment to individuals with mental illness.

A number of other open government cases are now before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Stay tuned for other developments in these cases that will affect your right to know.

Christa O. Westerberg is an attorney and shareholder at Garvey McNeil & McGillivray S.C. in Madison. Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (www.wisfoic.org), a nonprofit group dedicated to open government.

That was one of the anonymous comments posted on the Green Bay Press-Gazette Web site May 29 in reaction to an Associated Press story about what we're told is the last release of documents related to the tragic shooting in Crandon more than eight months ago. The killing spree claimed seven lives, including the shooter, off-duty deputy Tyler Peterson.

On the surface, the comment makes sense. The story wasn't particularly revealing and the records released that day by Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's office shed little light on some key questions that remain to this day:

1. Was there anything in Peterson's past to indicate he was capable of such a horrendous act?

2. Should someone so young be a police officer?

3. Was the law enforcement response proper leading up to Peterson shooting himself after he took six lives and wounded another?

4. How is it possible for someone to shoot himself in the head three times after suffering a gunshot from a SWAT sniper?

The investigating agencies have said repeatedly the answer to the first question is no; the second and fourth, yes; and the third, absolutely yes.

But it's fair to say that reporters covering this tragedy have been frustrated by the response to requests for open records. Real answers are hard to determine based on what has been made public. Officials have released documents replete with redactions, months after the fact, and asked us to trust that nothing incriminating has been removed.

Even more troubling, requests for Peterson's autopsy, which might shed light on how he shot himself three times in the head, have been denied. The state Justice Department says it no longer has custody of the report. A staff member several months ago sent it to Forest County District Attorney Leon Stenz, who won't allow its release.

The Associated Press and other news media requested Peterson's autopsy and those of the victims immediately after the shooting and again in February. In a letter to the AP dated June 6, Stenz wrote that the request for autopsies was denied based on a court case that protects district attorney files from being open to public inspection.

"Weighing against disclosure would be the public interest in maintaining the dignity and privacy of the victims and their families and the need to prevent further suffering by them," Stenz wrote. "I also believe that since the DCI reports were released which in part summarize the autopsy, the public interest in making the details of the investigation open to scrutiny has been satisfied."

No one can argue that the families haven't suffered greatly. Nevertheless, the questions that have been raised and remain unanswered are of great public interest. How else can our law-enforcement agencies be held accountable for the actions taken before, during and after the Crandon tragedy?

As for the autopsy summaries, they are merely interpretations of official documents and weren't prepared by scientific experts. And as to whether this all is even news anymore, another anonymous comment that followed that posting should weigh heavily on those in authority.

"It's news to the people who are affected by the case. I would want to know every single detail I could."

Roger Schneider is news editor of The Associated Press, Wisconsin. Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (www.wisfoic.org), a nonprofit group dedicated to open government.

Van Hollen agreed with state newspapers that basic information identifying people in accident and incident reports is open to public inspection under Wisconsin law.

It doesn't matter that a federal law prevents the state Division of Motor Vehicles from releasing some of the same information to the public. State law holds local police agencies to a higher and more open standard -- even when those local police agencies get their information from the DMV.

Police agencies across Wisconsin should heed Van Hollen's forceful and smart opinion. Van Hollen has made it clear that local police should allow ordinary citizens, newspapers and other media easy access to basic information identifying people on routine reports.

Too many police departments had been routinely blacking out addresses, dates of births, and other identifying information from even the most mundane reports before releasing them to the public.

The secrecy reached such a ridiculous point that even a complaint about a dog relieving itself on city property in Reedsburg prompted police to black out addresses, dates of births and the complainant's middle initial.

Reedsburg police tried to justify this stunning secrecy by citing a federal law called the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The act was intended to limit state motor vehicle departments from routinely giving out personal information about drivers. Congress wanted to prevent the sale of personal information. It also wanted to stop criminals, such as abusive and estranged boyfriends, from learning the addresses of those they might target.

But the federal law was never intended to apply to local police departments that simply use the DMV to get basic information about specific drivers involved in local accidents.

"We conclude that after a law enforcement officer has written a report or citation, including certain personal information obtained from the DMV, the officer's agency may provide a copy of the report or citation in response to a public records request," Van Hollen wrote.

Obviously, police departments should not release Social Security numbers. Nor do they have to give out information about drivers ' disabilities that aren't pertinent.

But names and addresses on basic reports and tickets must be released because they help people understand what's going on in their communities. Openness also boosts trust in local police.

Van Hollen took long enough to issue his opinion, which was requested back in July. But it turns out his wise analysis and advice were worth the wait.

Milfred is opinion page editor of the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison. Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (www.wisfoic.org), a nonprofit group dedicated to open government.

]]>jfoust@threedee.com (By Scott Milfred )2008 ColumnsThu, 16 Apr 2009 01:36:23 +0000April: Is it time to modernize public records law? http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=142:april-is-it-time-to-modernize-public-records-law-&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75
http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=142:april-is-it-time-to-modernize-public-records-law-&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75 Wisconsin has a long history of providing the public with access to its governmental records. Indeed, the state enacted the first of its public records laws in 1917. The current public records statutes were enacted in 1983.

Microfilm was the "whiz bang" technology for storing government records in 1983. Other exciting technologies of the day were audio tape, video tape and other electromagnetic tapes. In 1983, a laptop was a TV dinner (you remember them, don't you?).

While the state public records laws have seen some slight revisions since 1983 (dealing with the privacy rights), not one of these revisions has addressed the myriad issues that have arisen with the new and emerging technologies of our day.

The state statutes currently provide inadequate guidance to records custodians and citizens alike when applied to these new technologies. For example, what obligations does a records custodian have to preserve metadata, computer systems logs (used by information technology folks on daily basis to assess systems functions), voicemail, instant messaging, text messaging, or chat room discussions?

What access does a citizen have to easily alterable digital data and records? Must digital records be provided in a digital format if non-releasable information cannot be securely removed from the digital record?

The city of Madison began looking at these issues in early 2005. After consultation with the Attorney General's Office, it was determined that the city's Public Records Ordinance, which was modeled on state public records statutes, was inadequate to provide clear guidance to the public and to the City's various records custodians.

The Office of the City Attorney began the effort of revising the Madison's ordinance. That process employed the following principles:

1. The revisions should reflect the clear policy of openness embodied in the state statutes.

2. To the extent possible, applicable principles of those statutes should be extended to current and emerging technologies.

3. The media and other concerned citizens should have input in the drafting of the revisions.

4. The resulting ordinance should be easily comprehensible to the average user.

Making these revisions has spanned three years. During that time there have been some significant changes in technology, particularly in the ability to retain data from communications where that data was formerly quite perishable.

The process to revise this ordinance has included input from city council members, private citizens, news media attorneys and leading editors/publishers of the local news media. This collaborative effort has yielded an ordinance that effectively embraces these new technologies and ensures that the public has the maximum possible access to the inner workings of its government.

Undoubtedly there is some fine tuning to be done. For example, the city is still examining the correct treatment of text messaging, an area where the technology has changed during the time the ordinance was being drafted. It is clear that this process has brought bringing us closer to the enactment of a better public records ordinance.

Indeed, the proposed ordinance has been shared with municipal attorneys across the state and it is being touted as a model for updating the state statutes.

The proposed ordinance was introduced Feb. 8 at the Madison Common Council and has been referred to committee while the city attorney's office fine tunes the proposal before the ordinance is considered by the full council.

The proposed ordinance may be found under the Madison city government Web site's legislative link; it is Legislative File No. 09158.

Allen is a Madison assistant city attorney. Michael May is city attorney. Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (www.wisfoic.org), a nonprofit group dedicated to open government.

]]>jfoust@threedee.com (By Roger Allen )2008 ColumnsThu, 16 Apr 2009 01:33:33 +0000March: Openness group doles out honors http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=141:march-openness-group-doles-out-honors-&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75
http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=141:march-openness-group-doles-out-honors-&catid=43:2008-columns&Itemid=75 As part of national Sunshine Week, March 16-22, the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council is bestowing its second annual Opee Awards in recognition of people and institutions which have had an impact on open government in Wisconsin during the last year.

The honorees are:

Political Openness Advocate of the Year (the “Popee”): Wisconsin Supreme Court. In years past, Wisconsin’s high court might have qualified for a Dopee (“Dumbest Open Government Decision”) or even a Nopee (“No Friend of Openness”). But this year it merits positive mention for a pair of especially good rulings that expanded the public’s right to know. In Buswell v. Tomah Area School District, the court said government meeting notices must contain reasonably detailed information about the subjects up for discussion, especially when there’s evident public interest. And in Zellner v. Cedarburg School District, it rejected a teacher’s novel efforts to block the release of records related to his termination for viewing pornography on school computers. Way to go, Supremes! Keep it up!

Citizen Openness Advocates of the Year (the “Copee”): Tie: Brian Buswell and (Milton) Citizens for Responsible Development. Buswell, a building contractor, fought his claim that the Tomah schools’ vague meeting notice violated the open meetings law all the way to the state Supreme Court, and won. Credit also goes to his attorney brother, Jack Buswell, who litigated the case. Citizens for Responsible Development, meanwhile, won a precedent-setting appellate case holding that the Milton city council and plan commission violated the open meetings law when they repeatedly met in closed session to hammer out a deal with an ethanol plant. Like Buswell, the group received reimbursement for most of its legal costs – and now this award.

Media Openness Advocate of the Year (the “Mopee”): The Portage Daily Register. This small daily paper courageously challenged a denial of its 2006 request for information related to some possibly illegal flyers in a sheriff’s race. The sheriff’s office claimed the record was exempt, because it had been forwarded to the district attorney’s office as part of an open investigation. This reasoning was ultimately rejected by a state appeals court, plugging what could have been a dangerous loophole in the law.

Open Records Scoop of the Year (the “Scoopee”): Ben Jones, Appleton Post-Crescent. A dirty little secret about the state’s open records law is that sometimes it’s fun to see what you can find out. Earlier this year, this enterprising reporter obtained a list of 8,000 vanity license plates that the state Department of Transportation won’t allow. Some are tasteless (“KSMYBT,” “MOONME,” “IMNUDE”) some offensive for other reasons (“DTHRIDE,” “ROADRGE,” “STONED”). More questionable is the state’s decision to ban such social and political messages as “GAYPWR” and “IH8DOYL.” But, as Jones noted, we still have bumper stickers.

Don Quixote Tilting at Windmills Award (the “Quixopee”): Reps. Cory Mason and Dean Kaufert. This freshman Democrat from Racine and veteran Republican from Neenah last spring introduced a bill to open legislative caucus sessions held by political parties to the public. It’s an idea that has about as much chance of passing the Legislature as Miss Teen South Carolina does of acing the SATs. But it would be great public policy. Tilt away!

No Friend of Openness Award (the “Nopee”): Rep. Marlin Schneider. The Democratic state rep from Wisconsin Rapids probably qualifies for a lifetime achievement award in this category, for his efforts to shut off public access to information. Most notable this year was his bill to severely restrict who could have access to the state’s online database of circuit court records. Other lawmakers have since followed in his footsteps to propose chipping away at this access, bit by bit. Schneider is a sincere and devoted privacy advocate, and it may surprise some that the Freedom of Information Council supports his proposal to require that employers and landlords who make use of such databases disclose this to applicants. More information – and vigilant enforcement of existing anti-bias laws – is the way to go.

Dumbest Open Government Ruling (the “Dopee”): No winner this year. Now that’s progress.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (www.wisfoic.org), a nonprofit group dedicated to open government. Lueders is the group’s president.